http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
BEFORE the massacres at the World Trade Center and
Pentagon last September, The New York Times' Thomas
Friedman was an annoying fixture on the paper's op-ed
page, word-processing Democratic talking points twice
weekly. Since then, engaged in the progress of the
war, Friedman's output isn't nearly as worthless,
since he actually has something to write about. For
example, he appears to have an open mind about
military tribunals.

His Jan. 2 effort, however, is a howler. Friedman
begins: "All hail to President Bush for how he has
conducted the war against Osama bin Laden. Mr. Bush
has emerged a far better commander in chief than
anyone [in the columnist's social circles, at least]
predicted. In the war on terrorism he has shown steely
resolve, imagination, leadership and creativity. Thank
you, Mr. Bush. And now, I wish Al Gore were
president."

Well, that's quite a leap. Friedman's reason for
this preposterous desire is that Bush is exploiting
"the tremendous upsurge in patriotism" to "drive a
narrow, right-wing agenda from Sept. 10 into a Sept.
12 world. It's wrong. It won't work. It sells the
country short and it will ultimately sell the Bush
presidency short." The foreign-relations guru repeats
the outdated notion that the war is about oil, Saudi
Arabia's in particular. He calls for "a program for
energy independence, based on developing renewable
resources, domestic production [not that he recommends
drilling in ANWR] and energy efficiency. Not only
would every kid in America be excited by such a
project, but it also would be Mr. Bush's equivalent of
Richard Nixon going to China-the Texas oilman weaning
America off its dependence on Middle East oil. That
would be a political coup!"

Oh yes, another benefit: "It would also be Mr.
Bush's best response to foreigners who are enraged by
America's refusal to join the Kyoto treaty to stop
global warming."

You tell me: Who's living in a Sept. 10 world?
First, the Kyoto treaty is almost as dead as the
ABM. And who cares about the foreigners who are
allegedly still "enraged" by Bush's wise decision to
not join hands with Gore-like Europeans who bleat that
the Earth isn't balanced?

Second, Friedman writes as if the war is over,
rather than just beginning. Bin Laden's still at
large, Afghanistan is predictably unstable and, more
importantly, Saddam Hussein and Yasir Arafat are still
in power. I agree that Saudi Arabia's government is
corrupt, but Bush's burgeoning alliance with Vladimir
Putin-and the Russian oil that'll be available to the
U.S.-will eventually force the Saudi rulers to play by
American rules.

As for Bush usurping patriotism for an ideological
agenda, Friedman sounds as dumb as those hopeful
commentators who think that Tom DeLay's likely
promotion to majority leader next year will demonize
the Republican Party. DeLay, a wily legislator, cannot
possibly be vilified by Democratic fundraisers more
than he already has been.

And what exactly is Bush's "right-wing" program?
Letting Teddy Kennedy craft an expensive education
bill that doesn't include school vouchers? Appointing
a well-meaning but politically tone-deaf treasury
secretary who hasn't pounded his lectern for
immediate, across-the-board tax relief? Allowing the
Democrats to expand their donor base by demanding that
airport security personnel become union members?

As many Democrats have privately conceded, it's
fortunate that Al Gore isn't president. The thought of
his foreign policy, a let's-all-get-along global
seminar, with George Mitchell heading up probably a
dozen task forces, is a real nightmare. And while
noblesse oblige columnists like Friedman (and his
employers) wince when Bush speaks in blunt, common
language that most of the country identifies with, can
you even imagine the goo-goo wooden rhetoric that Gore
would've put the nation to sleep with in the midst of
its gravest crisis since World War
II?

JWR contributor "Mugger" -- aka Russ Smith -- is the editor-in-chief and CEO of New York Press (www.nypress.com). Send your comments to him by clicking here.